04/18/2011-CC-Agenda Packet-Work SessionAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
WORKSESSION
MONDAY9 APRIL 185 2011
6:00 PM
502 ELM STREET
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Discussion on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
3. Discussion on Future Capital Projects and Priorities.
4. Discussion on Updating the Retail Marketing Plan.
5. Overview of Items on Regular Agenda.
6. Adjournment.
I, the undersigned authority, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted on the
bulletin board, at the City Hall of the City of Sanger, Texas, a place convenient and readily
accessible to the general public at all times, and said notice was posted on the following date
and time: at S'; 00 (Zin. and shall remain
posted until meeting is adjourned.
Tami Taber, City Secretary
City of Sanger, Texas
This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parlung spaces ai•e available. Requests for
accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact
the City Secretary's office at (940) 458-7930 for further information.
ge
To: Mayor and Council
From: Mike Brice, City Manager
Date: 04/13/2011
Re; Impact Fees
Part of the Comprehensive Water and Wastewater study completed last year by KSA engineering
included a study of impact fees to help fund future capital improvements. Since we were in the middle
of the budget process at the time, we did not take time to discuss impact fees. New taps for water and
sewer connections are charged impact fees. The rationale is that new users impact the entire system
immediately and have not participated in infrastructure costs to date. Impact fees are a way of
generating revenue for improvements without raising the tax or utility rate.
State Law is very specific on impact fees and the requirements for cities to charge impact fees. One
requirement is a study to quantify what those fees should be. State Law then allows cities to charge
impact fees up to one-half of the cost of those improvements. However, cities can charge less if they
desire. It is important to remember that new water and wastewater lines are very expensive and some
funding method must be found to meet our infrastructure needs. Impact fees are one way to generate
those revenues. Another is capital improvement bonds which, as mentioned above, raise taxes or
utility rates.
Connect fees have fallen off dramatically with the slowdown in construction but we need to have the
new fees in place before construction picks up again. I have not provided a comparison to other cities
because they are all over the board. Some are much higher because the town is rapidly growing and
high fees are tolerable. Others are lower or nonexistent due to the fact that the town is not
experiencing growth.
Below is a chart showing our current connection fees and the proposed impact fees. The impact fees
would replace the connect fees. They are basically the same thing, but State Law refers to them as
Impact Fees. As you can see there is very little change on the residential water side but a significant
change on the Wastewater side due to the anticipated cost of the new Wastewater plant.
1
Type of Connection
Current Water
Possible
Current
Possible
Maximum
Wastewater
Maximum
Water
Wastewater
Residential
$2000400
$2265475
$2000,00
$4916460
Small Commercial 2 Inch
$2000,00 to
$2265075
$2000.00 to
$4916.50
water teeter and 6" sewer
$3000000
$3500.00
line or less
Large Commercial 3" or
$3600,00 to
$1511K53
$6500000 to
$32,940.55
larger water line
$6900,00
$101000.00
Schools
$3600.00 to
$15,180.53
$6500.00 to
$32,940.55
$6900000
$10,000,00
You can see that what we have been charging for large commercial users is dramatically less than the
true cost of the impact they have. Currently the fee is based on the size of the meter. KSXs study
uses large commercial versus small commercial as the categories and does not address meter size.
Most of our businesses in town have a 2" meter or smaller and would be classified as small commercial
users. We only have a few large commercial users in the City. However, adding just a few can have a
dramatic impact on our water and sewer capacity. Therefore, they have a more adverse impact on the
systems. For example, a restaurant or car wash may have the same impact as 30-40 houses.
The same is true for schools. We have typically waived connect fees for schools in the past. While
understand the rationality behind the decision to do so, 1 believe that the impact schools have on our
systems should make us rethink that strategy in the future. The High School, Butterfield Elementary
and the Middle School are the second, third and fourth overall water consumers respectively. They are
outdone only by Stonewood ranch Mobile Home Park.
Some view impact fees as anti -business and indeed they do add to the cost of establishing a new
business. However, growth impacts the water and wastewater system requiring new lines, upsizing old
lines and increasing capacity. These improvements have to be paid for in some way. There are prime
areas for commercial development now in the City where development is being impeded by a lack of
infrastructure. Bringing infrastructure to these areas will promote business growth and add to the tax
base. Impact fees are one of the sources we rely on to pay for these improvements.
• Page 2
0
0
�n
0
o
t�
�
�
O
t�
�O
V1
M
O
�
�
�
.-i
�
M
V)
N
t�
•
i
i
0
d'
m
N
�_
Ef3
.b
Q)
b
O �
U a�
..o
� o
� �
o �
�a �
U
++ �
� �
O
E-� W
��
N
N
w
U
�"
r-�
N
O
�—i
0
0
0
0
0
0
vi
vi
o
N
N
O
l�
�O
O
V1
M
O�
O�
M
M
V'1
I�
I�
N
N
N
EF3
69
69
0
0
0
M
O
M
M
69
Q
U
0
.�
U
O
a
cn
M
M
y
.�
U
.�
N
Q
.�
w
0
�v
°�
m
.�
W
'C�
N
ran "�
O �
U �
a �
� o
o
�� U
aY N
�-+ �
N �
U �
� ti
H a"
W
��
N
N
w
U
cC
3
v�
q
TABLE &A
CITY OF SANGER
EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNIT (ESU) ANALYSIS
Average ESU Ratio
Meter Type Month Usage (Gal) Day Demand (Gal) Flow (GPM) # of meters Calculated ESU* Recommended ESU**
RES 73423 247 0.17 2118 1.0 1.00
SMC 11,289 376 0.26 171 1.5 1.70
SCH 56,695 1,890 1.31 14 7.6 6.70
MUN 168,516 53617 3.90 16 22.7 1.00
LAC 50,024 107 1.16 8 6.7 6.7
* Calculated as (Month Usage/RES Month Usage)
** Recommended ESU based on AWWA Meter Equivalents for typical size meter.
TABLE �.B
CITY OF SANGER
EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNIT (ESU) PROJECTION
Meter Type � 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 202U - 203U 'Dotal >✓su xatio 1✓�u
RES 443 617 1849 2909 1.00 2909
SMC 21 23 55 99 1.70 168
SCH 2 2 5 9 6.70 60
MUN 2 3 6 11 1.00 11
LAC 7 8 17 32 6.70 214
3363